There’s a double-whammy for the Barclays of Notquite-Sark in this morning’s Telegraph lead: the twins hate giving foreign aid, and they hate the EU. So when Tory Minister Alan Duncan says “we give the EU foreign aid money and they squander it”, the offshore proprietors cream their jeans.

I don’t like Mr Duncan. He’s a lightweight, and part of Dianne Abbott’s fag-hag circle. Of course the EU squanders foreign aid: it squanders everything. So get out. If Mr Duncan wants out of Europe and his boss doesn’t, then he should resign.

As for the Tubbytwins, they don’t pay any UK tax, so WTF has it got to do with them?

Talking of overseas aid, The Indie on Sunday stays close to the Dave Cameo take-me-roughly please Cash for Anything scandal. After accepting tons of dosh from Tony Bamford (Mr JCB) in 2010, Cams has now dug himself another large hole by making a JCB factory visit the jewel in the crown of his Brazil begging-bowl fiesta.

Bamford is said to be in line for a peerage on the next House of Lords list. He and his missus are members of the Tooting Norton tendency. This is all part of Scameron’s ‘leg up’ approach to life: “‘e’s rolled up ‘is sleeves an’ ‘eaded it an’ it’s in the net”. All perfectly fair and above board, just like Jeremy Hunt, two Party Treasurers, G4S contracts, and texting Rebekah.

Dear me, this is all sounding a bit Alan Rusbridger. The Observer headlines the Ed Miller Band, sternly noting that the deputy head of Geography Labour leader has given ‘an ultimatum’ to City: that he will split off casino operations if bankers don’t mend their ways.

There’s really no need for the ‘if’ bit in this non-story: it’s just that, as always, Unsteady Eddie lacks the cojones to say “we will break you up, period”. And in other news, the East Cloggermole UDC (twinned with Ittyoshu in Japan) has delivered an ultimatum to Wen Jaibao: lay off the sabre-rattling – or else.

The Mail on Sunday reveals to a not entirely breathless world that runaway sex-pest and all-round paedo-beast Jeremy Forrest ‘was sleepless for much of his recent honeymoon’, or so his wife says. This is quite normal MoS. This is a tedious story MoS. We’re all really, really bored MoS. Go away.

But the Sun on Sunday (or SOS as the wags have taken to calling it) doesn’t understand this either. In a faint re-run of 300 Argentine deaths being celebrated with ‘GOTCHA!’, the Cu***nt Bun shows wicked kidnapper and totty-teacher Forrest in a woolly hat boarding a plane back to England with the words ‘GOT HIM’. Hurrah: Lolitas everywhere can now sleep safely in their beds, as opposed to the headmaster’s.

The Sunday Mirror does, however: “we’ve got a theme here lads: some blokes like ’em teenage: now let’s play another tune”. Yes, this week it’s Jimmy Squeaky-Clean Saville’s turn to be revealed as a filthy abuser of unwilling jail-bait.

I used to be a regular at Saville’s Beat City club in the early 1960s, when I was 14. Most of the girls in the club I was variously groping and knicker-fumbling were the same age or slightly older. Jimmy’s sole crime was being thirty years older than me, and more experienced.

That they went off for a bit of whatnot after the show with JS was an open secret. Unwilling? Hardly.

I’m still reading the Viz Profanasaurus. ‘Inserting the skin flute’ had me laughing again this morning, as did the premature ejaculation descriptor ‘Coming off at the Milly Billy roundabout’.

Profanosaurus on my 10 Desert Island books, about #3 on the list. Disagree that it’s for the lav only – notwithstanding the filthy looks I got when I discovered it in a provincial bookship and proceeded to howl the place down.

It would of course be wrong to attribute it merely to Viz. What it demonstrates is the extraordinary range and depth of contemporary linguistic creativity of Average Bloke. And that just when you might conclude that the BBC had finally marginalized Average Blokes’ 16th century intellectual ancestors – those audiences who “made” Shakespeare. It’s good to see Britain still has talent, even if one has to buy Viz rather than a TV licence to see it.

There have been allegations about Jim fixing it for the child prisoners (might as well call them what they were) of Haut de la Garenne to visit his dubious and well heeled friends for a bit of slap and tickle. Some of the victims have told the police that they were taken on board the yacht of a very famous politician, and also taken to the Royal Opera House as a “treat”. Seeing as there has been one whistleblower illegally raided by the police and jailed, and that the Jersey Chief of Police was also persecuted and suspended with no proper reason given I think it is a good thing that Jimmy Savilles activities have come under the media spotlight.

Great read thanks for sharing JW !.
“Dianne Abbott’s fag-hag circle”
Laugh ? I nearly splurged coffee all oven the table in a feeble parody of the old cliche’ haha! Thanks for brightening a dull Sunday !

JCB announced this last week that it would be cutting staff numbers in the UK. A union rep I heard interviewed on the local radio station seemed quite relaxed about it as following negotiation it involved only (or mostly) ‘agency workers’ – who obviously don’t need to eat – perhaps Cameo would like them to commute to Brazil?

What’s to debate? The phrase is a double synecdoche, with a clever twist. The “Gordon” can be directly dereferenced – even by a 5 year old. The (grown-up) twist is that the “Tony” can only be dereferenced indirectly, and requires knowledge of an intermediate cultural term: the name of a comedian deceased several decades ago (albeit whose work has been recreated by Paul Merton more recently).

You can slag off Cameron as much as you like but I consider that Bamford has lived a productive life and provided the means for many to have bread on the table. Unlike many of our politicos………of every shade.

I’m getting worried about you JW. Normally you’ve got a good sense for being on the right side of a story. It seems a shame that, especially with your track record of codemning paedophilia, elitist paedophile rings, abuse in care homes etc, you seem to be equating your own experience of teenage fumblings and using it to dismiss very serious criminal behaviour.

You are in danger of being on the wrong side of this story.

This story is a far bigger story than Jimmy Saville. That man did not get away with what he was doing all of his life without sympathetic people with a great deal of power helping him.But I know you already know that that is how Paedo rings work.

We are talking about vulnerable children between 12 to 14 years old in care homes. I think it’s rather disgusting that you can dismiss this with “they weren’t unwilling” (paraphrase) or ‘they were up for it.’ (translation)

Once again I congratulate you on you coverage of the Rochdale abuse case. It’s a bit of a shame that you can’t see that what Jimmy Saville was doing was just the same as those Muslim men.

I think you should reconsider your position because this could end up being a very big issue. More names could be outed and not just in entertainment,

It was not my intention to appear sanctimonious. I, like small voice below, have just politely disagreed with JW.

But if I had the choice between being perceived as sanctimonious on the issue of child abuse or frivilous, encouraging others to take a similarly blasé view point on the issue, then I’m content that you should feel that I’m the former.

I never liked Saville, he always gave me the creeps as did that other sexual predator Jonathon King, There is a big difference between what I assume was Sting’s approach ‘ Don’t stand so close to me ‘ & men like Saville & King’s, teenage groping is natural behaviour. personally I don’t think old men taking advantage of kids is.

The one thing I do know is, is that if any pathetic old fart had laid a hand on my mixed up, hormone overflowing daughter, I would have made it known to him that for the rest of his life that he would be well advised to watch his back.

One of the reasons we are in this mess is because of people who cannot say no to an offer that they should refuse but due to moral weakness cannot.

I do not care If that is me sitting on a high horse, to my probable disadvantage in life I was brought up with certain standards & taught that I should not take advantage, even of people sitting on donkeys. I had a different tuition from my Sicilian Grandmother however.

@stevie: My point was that, I would have hoped, everybody here accepts what you say as a given; to suggest the post made any apology for child abuse is, I feel, stretching it a bit. I also have two daughters and a son, and we know that JW has children.

I was never keen either but, in about 1986, a band I was then working in was booked to do his 60th party at a well known and exclusive Mayfair nightspot, the name of which escapes me entirely. It wasn’t a very good gig.. They’ll probably start calling him Jimmy Sovile now.

I know JW wasn’t condoning child abuse & I think he is right in regard to the fools in France & little Lolita’s, I just wanted to make my own case clear on how I feel about this issue. I just happen to think that preying on children, no matter how mixed up they are, in a serial fashion, is to me simply inexcusable whether they are willing or not. I suspect that John was just jealous, as I was in relation to a P.E. teacher at a school I was unfortunate enough to attend.

The newspaper called me Lolita when my case was reported on, and I didnt find out that I had even been reported about in the newspaper until I read it in my doctors notes. I didn’t know who Lolita was until the James Mason film came onto the television, and I was really upset when I found out. I had been treated in a really strange way by GPs for years, and I think the reason why is that when they read it in my doctors notes they condemned me. I complained about it, and then suddenly the newspaper cutting was taken out without even consulting me, because when I made a complaint about the Pindown childrens home my medical notes were altered. They shouldnt have done that. I was only 11 when I was first molested and I hated it, but they called me Lolita because I tried to run away from being abused with an older boy, who wasn’t punching me about.

What came over on the radio interviews was the smug attitude of the union spokesman & on the other hand the understandable resentment local people felt as regards the back-slapping Cam was giving Bam over the Brazilian factory.

I find it very hard to believe that a man of the intelligence you normally display can really believe that there is nothing wrong in a man ” thirty years older” having sex with a 14 year old, whether or not she is willing. If such a thing had happened to a daughter of yours who appeared to have been willing, would you have said nothing about it? All teenagers want to experiment, and at that age most of us think we are indestructible and will not be unlucky enough to get pregnant, or an STD, or mixed up with a violent or abusive person, but in reality a 14 year old is almost never going to be able to make sensible decisions about such things. This is precisely why there is an age of consent, and why teachers and people in positions of trust must have even higher standards than the rest of us- children are meant to trust them to do the right thing.
I would be very interested in your definition of a Lolita in this context, and whether you feel such a girl would always be to blame for her actions.
I personally had an intense crush on a man of about 30 when I was between 11 and 15, and had this man ever thought it was OK to respond to it ( I think it is almost certain he must have been aware ) I dread to think what effect that would have had on my life thereafter- he was often in a position to take things further, but never once made any even slightly inappropriate move.
Thank heavens there are good people around.
Many of the comments on this post seem to support your view that this behaviour is fine and rather admirable- steviefinn suggesting that you and he were jealous of the opportunity to have sex with underage girls- how does this make you any better than the abusers in the cases in the news recently?

I think John was being glib in one of his comments but judging from what he has said previously on the subject I don’t think for one minute he is in favour of old men having sex with young girls. I did not make myself clear in regards to the jealousy point. I have to confess to having sipped a bit to much of the red stuff & probably should not have commented at all however I did, & I stand by most of it.

Looking back there were girls who acted like Lolita’s, they were called much worse, but as I remember they were a minority,but in a large gathering they might not seem to be so & there were probably a big enough percentage to keep the likes of Saville & my ex P.E. teacher amused. I still think as you rightly say that they shouldn’t be taken advantage of.

I was a confused hormonal 15 -16 yr. old & my jealousy was mainly directed at the slightly older lads who the girls my age were attracted to, so I ended up with a 14 yr. old girlfriend who was in many ways more mature than I was. Being no angel I tried it on, but probably very fortunately always failed miserably. Legally I was trying to break the law, but all I can say is that at that age in a hell of sexual frustration I just couldn’t help myself..

I think that this is perhaps unfortunately, natural behaviour which as I aged I was increasingly able to control, that is why I think that the behaviour of fumbling super hormonal teenagers is light years away from much older men’s calculated predation.

I had better stop commenting on this thread, I sense I am getting myself into a deep hole.

I am not sure why you defend JWs comments then- he says very clearly that Forrest should not be prosecuted and the explanation of that is that it would be hypocrisy by the government who tolerated organised paedophile rings for political reasons. So, because worse things happen , bad things should be overlooked? How many weak minded teachers of both sexes might take the message, well it’s OK then, he got away with it, it’s only a few months till she is old enough. Actually it isn’t, as previously pointed out, a person in a place of trust over children commits a criminal offence if they are involved in sexual activity with anyone under 18 who is in their care, and that means at their place of employment, not necessarily their own pupil.
JW also seems to think the Savile case should be left alone, which is looking worse and worse as more information comes out. I don’t like a witch hunt anymore than JW, and the fact that it has only come out after his death is deplorable in all ways, but the victims right to even a little redress is more important. I am incensed by the suggestion that because some of them may have seemed to be “up for it” , it was OK what he seems to have systematically done. Kids do odd and inappropriate things, quite often because they are already emotionally damaged, or just because they think they are expected to do them, or are scared not to.

I cannot understand your view that Savile’s behaviour was anything other than criminal and vile – and especially given his celebrity, the fact he presented himself as a do-gooder, and that the girls involved were particularly vulnerable in the first place. And even worse, people in authority seem to have known about Savile’s actions and done nothing. This is a scandal if ever there was one, and possibly a conspiracy.